Skip to content

Native audit-log format allows CRLF injection and log forgery via request body and header fields

Moderate
fzipi published GHSA-prpw-wwv7-xjjr Oct 2, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 (Go)

Affected versions

>= 3.0.0, <= 3.7.0

Patched versions

3.8.0

Description

Root Cause

File: internal/auditlog/formats.go — multiple sites write attacker-influenced bytes into the Native audit-log stream without escaping \r or \n:

// Part B — request headers (lines 72–80)
for k, vv := range al.Transaction().Request().Headers() {
    for _, v := range vv {
        res.WriteByte('\n')
        res.WriteString(k)
        res.WriteString(": ")
        res.WriteString(v)   // ← raw
    }
}

// Part C — request body (lines 85–86)
if body := al.Transaction().Request().Body(); body != "" {
    res.WriteString(body)    // ← raw
    res.WriteByte('\n')
}

// Part E — response body (lines 93–94)      raw
// Part F — response headers (lines 111–118) raw
// Part H — error messages (line 125)        raw
// Part K — matched-rule raw data (line 151)  raw

The Native format's section structure is line-based: sections are delimited by lines of the form --<10-char-random-prefix>-<Part>--, and line-based log parsers / SIEM rules rely on that structure. Any attacker-controlled bytes containing \n break the structural invariant and allow the attacker to inject lines that look like genuine audit content.

The other two Native-format implementations in Coraza are not affected: the JSON formatter (formats_json.go) and the OCSF formatter both round-trip values through json.Marshal, which escapes \r and \n.

Impact

An attacker who can land bytes into any of the listed audit-log fields can inject arbitrary lines — including lines that visually resemble new log entries — into the audit log file of a defender running the default SecAuditLogFormat Native configuration. Realistic consequences:

  • Forging entries to shift attribution. An injected line such as [client "9.9.9.9"] Coraza: Warning. ... sits alongside genuine matches in Part H, and a human operator (or simple SIEM rule) reading the log cannot tell them apart.
  • Confusing SIEM correlation. Any ingestion pipeline that splits on --...-[A-Z]-- boundaries or on [client "..."] patterns without validating the session prefix will treat the forged lines as separate records.
  • Breaking log-parsing tooling. Grep/awk pipelines, log tailers, and log-rotation tools with line-based assumptions can be poisoned with crafted binary sequences.
  • Hiding genuine incidents. An attacker who can also trigger a rule match on the same transaction (trivial — send any request that matches any audit-logged rule) can bury the real match under noise they control.

The forged lines cannot trivially impersonate an entire separate session: the 10-char random prefix in the real boundaries (boundaryPrefix := "--" + utils.RandomString(10) + "-", line 42) is not predictable from outside, and each transaction uses a fresh prefix. But the integrity of a single record is fully compromised, which is enough for the SIEM-confusion and attribution-shifting attacks.

Proof of Concept

Server with coraza.conf-recommended-style defaults:

SecRuleEngine On
SecAuditEngine On
SecAuditLogParts ABCFHZ
SecAuditLogType Serial
SecAuditLog /tmp/audit.log
SecAuditLogFormat Native
SecRequestBodyAccess On
SecRule REQUEST_METHOD "@rx ." \
    "id:1001,phase:1,pass,log,auditlog,msg:'trigger'"

Body vector — reachable via stock coraza/v3/http + net/http

Send an ordinary urlencoded POST whose body contains raw CRLF sequences and forged boundaries:

POST / HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

evil=benign\r\n--coraza-forged-X--\r\nForgedLine: yes\r\n--coraza-forged-H--\r\n[client "9.9.9.9"] FAKE ATTACK ENTRY

Resulting audit.log:

--heLNtylvjY-C--
evil=benign
--coraza-forged-X--
ForgedLine: yes
--coraza-forged-H--
[client "9.9.9.9"] FAKE ATTACK ENTRY

--heLNtylvjY-F--

The forged --coraza-forged-X-- / --coraza-forged-H-- boundaries and the spoofed [client "9.9.9.9"] line are structurally indistinguishable from the surrounding genuine log content. No rule fires, no error is raised, the attack is invisible to the WAF.

Header vector — reachable via non-net/http integrations only

The same effect applies to Part B (request headers) and Part F (response headers) when a header value contains raw \r\n. Go's net/http rejects such headers at parse time (400 Bad Request), so the stock HTTP wrapper is safe from this path; the vector is reachable when Coraza is called with header values that were not validated by net/http:

  • coraza-spoa (HAProxy SPOP agent) forwards headers from HAProxy, which has more permissive validation.
  • coraza-proxy-wasm / Envoy WASM hosts forward header values from the upstream proxy.
  • Custom FFI/WASM hosts and any embedder calling tx.AddRequestHeader(k, v) with unvalidated bytes.

Other raw-write sites (Part E response body, Part H error messages, Part K matched-rule data) share the same class of issue and should be fixed together.

Mitigation

Escape \r and \n at every raw-write site in internal/auditlog/formats.go. A single package-level helper is sufficient:

var logEscaper = strings.NewReplacer("\r", "\\r", "\n", "\\n")

// Part B — header values:
res.WriteString(logEscaper.Replace(v))

// Part F — header values: same
// Part H — error messages:
res.WriteString(logEscaper.Replace(alWithErrMsg.ErrorMessage()))
// Part K — matched-rule raw data:
res.WriteString(logEscaper.Replace(alEntry.Data().Raw()))

For Part C / Part E (bodies), the choice is policy-dependent:

  • Escape inline (logEscaper.Replace(body)): keeps the log human-readable for text bodies but loses fidelity for binary.
  • Base64 / hex-encode the whole part: binary-safe, matches the spirit of ModSecurity v2's binary-log handling, but less human-readable.

Escaping is the minimum; base64 for bodies is the more conservative default and is a reasonable audit-log-default change.

Additional defensive measure

Consider lengthening the boundaryPrefix random suffix from 10 chars to ≥16 chars (line 42). This strictly raises the bar for attackers attempting to fully forge a separate-looking session (not just inject lines into the current one). Low-cost change; narrows future variants of this bug class.

Affected versions

The Native formatter has been present since v3.0.0 (file existed at the first-release commit). All releases >= 3.0.0, <= 3.7.0 are affected when SecAuditLogFormat Native is used with SecAuditLogType Serial or SecAuditLogType Concurrent.

Unaffected:

  • Deployments using SecAuditLogFormat JSON (formats_json.go uses json.Marshal which escapes \r\n).
  • Deployments using OCSF output.
  • Deployments with SecAuditEngine Off.

References

  • internal/auditlog/formats.go lines 42, 72–80 (Part B), 85–88 (Part C), 93–96 (Part E), 111–118 (Part F), 125 (Part H), 151 (Part K)
  • coraza.conf-recommended — default SecAuditLogFormat Native, SecAuditLogParts ABIJDEFHZ / ABCFHZ variants
  • CWE-117 — Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
  • CWE-93 — CRLF Injection

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

CVE ID

CVE-2026-41504

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')

The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits